| positive | - "good sequel dune part ii is a very good sequel. the world building in this movie is great and really establishes the fremen culture. i love how the movie dives deep into how they view culture and religion and the split that they have over their belief in paul. timothee chalamet is excellent as paul atreides. his character arc is amazing. he starts off as someone who just wants to help and then through his time with the fremen he starts to use them and their faith to get his own revenge. zendaya was also great and her character's dynamic with paul was very fleshed out. i loved how she went from loving him to despising what he represents. florence pugh was a good addition here although she didn't have much to do. austin butler stole the show in my opinion. he was a perfect villain and his pure psychotic nature was frightening. the costumes, visual effects, and set design all looked great. i especially love the design of the black and white planet. there were a lot of cool things they did with it, like the fireworks for example. the action scenes are pretty good. the cinematography is very good and denis villeneuve crushed it directing. hans zimmer delivers a killer score here as he always does. i only have a few minor issues with the movie. just like the first movie i think the pacing was a little off and despite rebecca ferguson giving a great performance i didn't really think her storyline was that interesting or well explained. overall dune part ii is a really good movie and if you liked the first one you'll have a great time here."
- "am i the only one who's not seeing it? i mean, yeah, it's very entertaining and, of course, very visually stunning. the set pieces, the cinematography, the use of visual effects and lights, the sound design and music, all, absolutely amazing and almost literally stunning!but then? i'm not really seeing much after that. as i have not read the books, this movie was a total mystery to me. there's barely any dialog--at least not any that would explain anything what's going on at all. the world and the technology etc just doesn't make much sense to me.none of the characters are particularly interesting, to be honest. they don't really have that much personality to them, and even if they did, they didn't really make me care about them all that much.i don't know, i'm a bit conflicted, it wasn't a bad movie and, as i said, it was entertaining and visually mesmerizing, but it lacked the depth that i was expecting of a world this size and this rich with lore and history. maybe the movie makers assumed everyone has read the books? as someone to who the world is not familiar at all, it just seems rather confusing and strange. i feel like they just focused on making it as visually awesome as they can (in which they arguably succeeded), but left the story on the pages of the books."
- 'dune: part two it's totally amazing best sf movie i just saw the new movie "dune: part two" and i was speechless.it was amazing, full of creativity and an unforgettable action.from the sensational footage, which i will constantly praise, to the story and everything that the dune universe means.shocking scenes, dramatic scenes, romantic scenes but also full scenes, full of action, carnage and explosions.something i've been waiting for so long and it was more perfect than i expected...in imax, the sound was so good that at any explosion or need for bass, it creates a shock, an earthquake that gives incredible pleasure.you must see it and i declare that it is the best film of 2024 and i don't think that any of the upcoming movies will be better. waiting for oscars and all the wins possible .'
|
| negative | - 'boring, wow, so very boring ...i walked out about 2hrs in because i just couldn't anymore.i don't understand how a movie with so much time and space could possibly exclude so much and move the plot so little.no storytelling: it feels like an extended montage where paul's cheerleading base grows along with his relationship with chani but we don't know how or why.poorly written: female leads felt like wallpaper rather than the badass characters who carry paul through the book. some reviews here are saying the movie was true to the book, which i don't understand because they also don't even touch on the space guild.vapid acting: paul. bautista can only scream? everyone seemed demoralized in their roles (i would be too if i was zendaya, rebecca ferguson, or anyone else who actually wanted to embrace the role of a lifetime and was so absolutely diminished)."cinematography": i must be hard to get more than a handful of creative shots of sand. what was happening on the harkonnen home world? honestly the blown out black and white scene felt really lazy and cheap. at least after that there was more desert.christopher walken: was his casting supposed to be some sort of meta joke? even his performance rang flat. i thought the emperor was supposed to be eternally young due to spice consumption. how this character is supposed to be the center / leader of the universe is anyone's guess.i'll wait until it's streaming and finish at my convenience to see if any of this gets salvaged, i just can't imagine how it could be.'
- "great i you didn't read the books short spoiler-free version: a was really looking forward to this movie. having read the books multiple times, i left the cinema feeling cheated en confused. granted the visuals and the music are astounding. the actors perform very well and the story is fine if haven't read the books. and there's the problem. i you, like me, have read the book you will be thinking 'why?' every 10 minutes or so. villeneuve has made so many changes to the story, i hardly recognize it as dune anymore. and that makes me sad. i try to view the movie and the book as separate things. but how many changes can one make in the story before it deviates to much? after all it is a movie adaptation of the book, there should be enough of it you can recognize. in this the director has, sadly, mist the marc.after the movie i kept sitting staring as the credits rolled by, i was the last one to leave an i felt cheated and sad. my advice is, if you love the books, wait for the streaming services to pick it up. if you haven't read the books, go an see it, you'll love it although perhaps it might be a bit long for your taste.longer version (spoilers!) so, what went wrong? is do understand that you have tot make some choices in what you keep en leave out in the story when making a story. you merge some characters, leave some out. delete scenes that a nice but not really necessary in the main plotline. (like the banket-scene in the first movie). but villenueve and the writers have made al lot of changes that impact the story in so much that is totally deviates from the book. as a fan i can not get my head around soms of them: chani is not supporting at all of paul, she is mostly angry and against all that paul wants tot do. the actors try there best but i miss the chemistry from the previous adaptations and the books. in the ending there is no 'we are concubines' scene. chani leaves paul and rides out in the dessert. why?jessica in the books is a strong well trained bene gesserit. in the movie she goes from a weak, sniveling, manipulative woman. not the strong reverent mother who takes care of het people en supports paul and grows closer tot chani. i can't understand why.stilgar in the books is a strong and wise leader who teaches paul and gradually gives him his trust. in the movie he is transformed into an religious zealot from the south of arrakis, were all fremen blindly believe in the prophecy. (in the north the fremen are non-believers, essentially making it 2 different tribes of fremen, again why?).and then there is no mention of the ecological theme, instead of the water of life they threaten with nukes on the spicefields, no spicing guild and a feeble weak emperor (poor christhoper walken, he tries)) i can get why feyd is changed into a psychopath (not much change from the books) and why hawat and alia are left out completely (sad but understandable). but the rest? as i stated, i feld robbed, sad and very disappointed. it could have been better, but is was a mocking of the real thing."
- "the whole movie happens in slow motion once you realize that the movie is happening in slow motion, you can't un-see it:slowly pan over beautiful landscape, close-up of someone's face. talk. very. slowly. one. word ..... at a time. pan out. bwaaaap/loud noise, next scene, rinse and repeat, stir in the occasional action scene.there are a lot of dialog scenes in this movie, but not much is said. i understand that the book is both thick and dense, so showing everything in slow motion seems an odd choice. i honestly think, if you watch this at home, you could watch it at 2x speed and it might be a decent way to spend an hour and 15 minutes.the battle scenes were also kinda dumb. this is ~8000 years in the future, inter-galactic space flight exists, planes, helicopters, nuclear warheads, guns, lazers, bazookas and more all exist, yet people decide to go to battle as if it's the middle ages - fighting with knives! you don't need to be a messiah to realize that you could bring guns to a knife fight. i'll give them poetic liscense on this one and perhaps we can write it off to the aesthetics, but it did make some of the scenes a little laughable once you realize what's going on. maybe they explain this in the book?i did not enjoy dune 1 for much the same reasons, but so many people were saying this one was better. fool me once, shame on you. fool me twice, shame on me! i will not be fooled a third time!"
|
